csedu 2012 - uoausers.uoa.gr/~zsmyrnaiou/conferences_after2008/csedu 1_2012.pdf · csedu 2012...
Post on 23-Oct-2019
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
CSEDU 2012Proceedings of the
4th International Conference onComputer Supported Education
Volume 1
Porto, Portugal
16 - 18 April, 2012
Sponsored byINSTICC – Institute for Systems and Technologies of Information, Control
and Communication
Technically Co-sponsored bySPEE – Portuguese Society for Engineering Education
IFIP – International Federation for Information Processin gROLE – Responsive Open Learning Environments
IGIP – International Society for Engineering Education
Media Partnerelearningeuropa.info
Copyright c© 2012 SciTePress – Science and Technology PublicationsAll rights reserved
Edited by Markus Helfert, Maria João Martins and José Cordeiro
Printed in Portugal
ISBN: 978-989-8565-06-8
Depósito Legal: 342246/12
http://www.csedu.org/
csedu.secretariat@insticc.org
BRIEF CONTENTS
INVITED SPEAKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV
ORGANIZING AND STEERING COMMITTEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
PROGRAM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI
AUXILIARY REVIEWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI
SELECTED PAPERS JOURNAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII
CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV
III
INVITED SPEAKERS
Joseph Trimmer
Ball State University
U.S.A.
David Kaufman
Simon Fraser University
Canada
Hugh Davis
University of Southampton
U.K.
IV
ORGANIZING AND STEERING COMMITTEES
CONFERENCE CHAIR
José Cordeiro, Polytechnic Institute of Setúbal / INSTICC,Portugal
PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS
Markus Helfert, Dublin City University, Ireland
Maria João Martins, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Portugal
PROCEEDINGS PRODUCTION
José Braz, Escola Superior de Tecnologia de Setúbal, Portugal
Marina Carvalho, INSTICC, Portugal
Helder Coelhas, INSTICC, Portugal
Patrícia Duarte, INSTICC, Portugal
Bruno Encarnação, INSTICC, Portugal
Liliana Medina, INSTICC, Portugal
Carla Mota, INSTICC, Portugal
Raquel Pedrosa, INSTICC, Portugal
Vitor Pedrosa, INSTICC, Portugal
Cláudia Pinto, INSTICC, Portugal
José Varela, INSTICC, Portugal
CD-ROM PRODUCTION
Pedro Varela, INSTICC, Portugal
GRAPHICS PRODUCTION AND WEBDESIGNER
Daniel Pereira, INSTICC, Portugal
SECRETARIAT
João Teixeira, INSTICC, Portugal
WEBMASTER
Susana Ribeiro, INSTICC, Portugal
V
PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Mehdi Adda, Université du Québec à Rimouski,Canada
Wan Fatimah Wan Ahmad, Universiti TeknologiPETRONAS, Malaysia
Esma Aïmeur, Université De Montréal, Canada
AbdulKareem Eid Al-Alwani , Yanbu UniversityCollege, Saudi Arabia
Grigore Albeanu, Spiru Haret University, Romania
Peter Albion, University of Southern Queensland,Australia
Antonia Lucinelma Pessoa Albuquerque,Independent Researcher, The Netherlands
Colin Allison , University of St. Andrews, U.K.
Gustavo Alves, LABORIS / Instituto Superior deEngenharia do Porto (ISEP), Portugal
Mike Ananny , Microsoft Research & HarvardUniversity, U.S.A.
Stamatina Anastopoulou, University of Athens,Greece
Faye Antoniou, National and KapodistrianUniversity of Athens, Greece
Kevin Ashley, University of Pittsburgh, U.S.A.
Anders Avdic, Örebro University, Sweden
Nilufar Baghaei, Unitec, New Zealand
Balamuralithara a/l Balakrishnan , UniversitiTunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia
Amar Balla , Ecole Nationale d’Informatique, ESI,Algeria
Jorge Barbosa, UNISINOS, Brazil
Patrícia Brandalise Scherer Bassani,Universidade Feevale, Brazil
Jos Beishuizen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, TheNetherlands
Markus Bick , ESCP EuropeWirtschaftshochschule Berlin, Germany
Gautam Biswas, Vanderbilt University, U.S.A.
Marlies Bitter-Rijpkema , Open Universiteit, TheNetherlands
Emmanuel G. Blanchard, Aalborg UniversityCopenhagen, Denmark
Lars Bollen, Universiteit Twente, The Netherlands
Andreas Bollin, Alpen-Adria UniversitätKlagenfurt, Austria
Katrin Borcea-Pfitzmann, Technische UniversitätDresden, Germany
Federico Botella, Miguel Hernandez University ofElche, Spain
Jacqueline Bourdeau, Télé-université, UQAM,Canada
Ghizlane El Boussaidi, École de TechnologieSupérieure, Canada
Amel Bouzeghoub, Telecom SudParis, France
Paul Brna, University of Leeds, U.K.
Dumitru Burdescu, University of Craiova,Romania
Winslow S. Burleson, Arizona State University,U.S.A.
Murat Perit Çakir , Middle East TechnicalUniversity, Turkey
Chris Campbell, University of Queensland,Australia
Manuel Ortega Cantero, Castilla – La ManchaUniversity, Spain
Ana Amélia Carvalho, Universidade do Minho,Portugal
Carlos Vaz de Carvalho, ISEP, Portugal
Manuel Cebrian, Universidad de Málaga, Spain
Vanessa Chang, Curtin University of Technology,Australia
Mohamed Amine Chatti, RWTH AachenUniversity, Germany
Maria de Fátima Chouzal, University of Porto -Faculty of Engineering, Portugal
Geraldine Clarebout, Katholieke UniversiteitLeuven, Belgium
Cesar Collazos, Universidad del Cauca, Colombia
VI
PROGRAM COMMITTEE (CONT.)
Ruth Gannon Cook, DePaul University, U.S.A.
Mark G. Core , USC Institute for CreativeTechnologies, U.S.A.
Gennaro Costagliola, Università di Salerno, Italy
Manuel Perez Cota, Universidade de Vigo, Spain
Caroline M. Crawford , University ofHouston-Clear Lake, U.S.A.
Ulrike Cress, University of Tübingen, Germany
John Philip Cuthell , Mirandanet, U.K.
Thanasis Daradoumis, University of the Aegean /Open University of Catalonia, Greece
Sergiu Dascalu, University of Nevada, Reno,U.S.A.
Lizanne DeStefano, University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A.
Giuliana Dettori , Istituto per le TecnologieDidattiche (ITD-CNR), Italy
Darina Dicheva, Winston-salem State University,U.S.A.
Yannis Dimitriadis , School ofTelecommunications Engineering, Universityof Valladolid, Spain
Danail Dochev, Institute of Information andCommunication Technologies-Bulgarian Academyof Sciences, Bulgaria
Peter Dolog, Aalborg University, Denmark
Chyi-Ren Dow, Feng Chia University, Taiwan
Jon Dron, Athabasca University, Canada
Roza Dumbraveanu, The State PedagogicalUniversity, Moldova, Republic of
Larbi Esmahi , Athabasca University, Canada
Si Fan, University of Tasmania, Australia
Mingyu Feng, SRI International, U.S.A.
Alvaro Figueira , Faculdade de Ciências daUniversidade do Porto, Portugal
Davide Fossati, Carnegie Mellon University inQatar (CMU- Qatar), Qatar
Rita Francese, Università degli Studi di Salerno,Italy
Reva Freedman, Northern Illinois University,U.S.A.
Antonio Bautista García-Vera, UniversidadComplutense de Madrid, Spain
Serge Garlatti, TELECOM Bretagne, France
Isabela Gasparini, UFRGS and UDESC, Brazil
Xun Ge, University of Oklahoma, U.S.A.
Henrique Gil , Escola Superior de Educação deCastelo Branco & CAAP da Universidade Técnicade Lisboa, Portugal
Song Gilsun, Zhejiang University, China
Anandha Gopalan, Imperial College London, U.K.
Jivesh Govil, Cisco Systems, U.S.A.
Sabine Graf, Athabasca University, Canada
Steve Graham, Vanderbilt University, U.S.A.
Scott Grasman, Rochester Institute of Technology,U.S.A.
Maria Grigoriadou , University of Athens, Greece
Gabriela Grosseck, West University of Timisoara,Romania
Angela Guercio, Kent State University, U.S.A.
Christian Guetl , Graz University of Technology,Austria
Nuno Guimarães, Lasige / Faculty of Sciences,University of Lisbon, Portugal
David Guralnick , Kaleidoscope Learning /Columbia University, U.S.A.
Joerg M. Haake, FernUniversitaet in Hagen,Germany
Laurence Habib, Oslo and Akerhus UniversityCollege of Applied Sciences, Norway
Leontios Hadjileontiadis, Aristotle University ofThessaloniki, Greece
John Hamer, University of Glasgow, U.K.
Yasunari Harada, Waseda University, Japan
VII
PROGRAM COMMITTEE (CONT.)
Andreas Harrer , Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt,Germany
Roger Hartley, University of Leeds, U.K.
Stylianos Hatzipanagos, King’s College London,U.K.
Orit Hazzan, Technion Israel Institute ofTechnology, Israel
Rachelle Heller, The George WashingtonUniversity, U.S.A.
Richard Helps, Brigham Young University, U.S.A.
Davinia Hernández-Leo, Universitat PompeuFabra, Spain
Nick Hine, University of Dundee, U.K.
Mark van’t Hooft , Kent State University, U.S.A.
Kun Huang, University of North Texas HealthScience Center, U.S.A.
Janet Hughes, University of Dundee, U.K.
Kin-chuen Hui , University of Hong Kong, HongKong
Nataliya V. Ivankova, University of Alabama atBirmingham, U.S.A.
Romina Jamieson-Proctor, University of SouthernQueensland, Australia
Marc Jansen, University of Applied Sciences RuhrWest, Germany
Katerina Kabassi, Tei of the Ionian Islands, Greece
Michail Kalogiannakis , University of Crete,Greece
Achilles Kameas, Hellenic Open University,Greece
Bill Kapralos , University of Ontario Institute ofTechnology, Canada
Manu Kapur , Nanyang Technological University,Singapore
Göran Karlsson, KTH Stockholm, Sweden
David Kaufman, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Jalal Kawash, University of Calgary, Canada
Nick Kearney, Andamio Education andTechnology S.L., Spain
ChanMin Kim , The University of Georgia, U.S.A.
Lars Knipping , Berlin Institute of Technology,Germany
Gwendolyn Kolfschoten, Delft University ofTechnology, The Netherlands
Maria Kordaki , Computer Institute of Technology,Greece
Georgios Kouroupetroglou, University of Athens,Greece
Milos Kravcik , RWTH Aachen University,Germany
Birgit Krogstie , Norwegian University of Scienceof Technology, Norway
Jean-Marc Labat, Université Pierre et MarieCurie, France
Timo Lainema, Turku School of Economics,Finland
H. Chad Lane, University of Southern California,U.S.A.
Reneta Lansiquot, New York City College ofTechnology, U.S.A.
Kevin Larkin , University of Southern Queensland,Australia
Richard C. Larson, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, U.S.A.
José Paulo Leal, Faculty of Sciences of theUniversity of Porto, Portugal
Dominique Leclet, UPJV, France
Chien-Sing Lee, National Central University,Taiwan
Newton Lee, Newton Lee Laboratories LLC,U.S.A.
Howard Leung, City University of Hong Kong,Hong Kong
Andrew Lian , Suranaree University of Technology,Thailand
Cheng-Min Lin , Nan Kai University ofTechnology, Taiwan
Andreas Lingnau, University of Strathclyde, U.K.
Chen-Chung Liu, National Central University,Taiwan
VIII
PROGRAM COMMITTEE (CONT.)
Jacques Lonchamp, Loria, University of Nancy,France
Heide Lukosch, Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands
Stephan Lukosch, Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands
Liliane Machado, Universidade Federal daParaíba, Brazil
Philip Machanick , Rhodes University, SouthAfrica
Krystina Madej , Georgia Tech, U.S.A.
Roderval Marcelino, SATC, Brazil
José Marques, FEUP, Portugal
Lindsay Marshall , Newcastle University, U.K.
Alke Martens, Universität of EducationSchwäbisch Gmünd, Germany
Manolis Mavrikis , London Knowledge Lab, U.K.
Bruce Maxim, University of Michigan-Dearborn,U.S.A.
Rory McGreal , Athabasca University, Canada
António José Mendes, Universidade de Coimbra,Portugal
José Carlos Metrôlho, Instituto Politécnico deCastelo Branco, Portugal
Bakhtiar Mikhak , Harvard University, U.S.A.
Alexander Mikroyannidis , The Open University,U.K.
Tanja Mitrovic , University of Canterbury, NewZealand
Riichiro Mizoguchi , Osaka University, Japan
Felix Mödritscher , Vienna University ofEconomics and Business, Austria
Susan Moisey, Athabasca University, Canada
Gaëlle Molinari , Distance Learning UniversitySwitzerland, Switzerland
Alejandra Martínez Monés, Universidad deValladolid, Spain
Anders Morch, University of Oslo, Norway
Pablo Moreno-Ger, Universidad Complutense deMadrid, Spain
Roberto Moriyón , Universidad Autonoma deMadrid, Spain
Chrystalla Mouza, University of Delaware, U.S.A.
Jogesh K. Muppala, Hong Kong University ofScience and Technology, Hong Kong
Larysa Nadolny, West Chester University, U.S.A.
Hiroyuki Nagataki , Okayama University, Japan
Minoru Nakayama, Tokyo Institute of Technology,Japan
David Nichols, University of Waikato, NewZealand
Sotiris Nikolopoulos, Technological EducationalInstitute of Larissa, Greece
Stavros Nikolopoulos, University of Ioannina,Greece
Brian Nolan, Institute of TechnologyBlanchardstown, Ireland
Daniel Novak, Czech Technical University, CzechRepublic
Fátima L. S. Nunes, Universidade de São Paulo,Brazil
Hajime Ohiwa, Keio University, Japan
Rocco Oliveto, University of Salerno, Italy
José Palma, Escola Superior de Tecnologia deSetúbal, Portugal
Viktoria Pammer , Know-Center, Austria
Kyparisia A. Papanikolaou, School ofPedagogical & Technological Education, Greece
Iraklis Paraskakis, South East European ResearchCentre, Greece
Paul Peachey, University of Glamorgan, U.K.
Chang-Shyh Peng, California Lutheran University,U.S.A.
Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, Universidad Carlos III deMadrid, Spain
Antonio Ramón Bartolomé Pina, Universitat deBarcelona, Spain
IX
PROGRAM COMMITTEE (CONT.)
Niels Pinkwart, Clausthal University ofTechnology, Germany
Leonard A. Plugge, Stichting SURF, TheNetherlands
Elvira Popescu, University of Craiova, Romania
Philippos Pouyioutas, University of Nicosia,Cyprus
Franz Puehretmair, Competence NetworkInformation Technology to Support the Integrationof People with Disabilities (KI-I), Austria
Ricardo Queirós, DI/ESEIG & CRACS, Portugal
Roy Rada, University of Maryland BaltimoreCounty, U.S.A.
Maria da Graça Rasteiro, University of Coimbra,Portugal
Janet C. Read, University of Central Lancashire,U.K.
Petrea Redmond, University of SouthernQueensland, Australia
Gabriel Reedy, King’s College London, U.K.
Martin Reisslein, Arizona State University, U.S.A.
Maria Teresa Restivo, FEUP, Portugal
Fernando Reinaldo Ribeiro, Instituto Politécnicode Castelo Branco, Portugal
Griff Richards , Thompson Rivers University,Canada
Uwe Riss, SAP AG, Germany
Barbara Sabitzer, Klagenfurt University, Austria
Fahad Samad, Institute of Business & Technology,Pakistan
Ian Douglas Sanders, University of theWitwatersrand, South Africa
Abdolhossein Sarrafzadeh, Unitec, New Zealand
Giuseppe Scanniello, Università Degli Studi dellaBasilicata, Italy
Hans-Christian Schmitz, Fraunhofer Institute forApplied Information Technology, Germany
Ulrik Schroeder, RWTH Aachen University,Germany
Georgios Sideridis, University of Crete, Greece
Pei Hwa Siew, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman,Malaysia
Juarez Bento da Silva, Universidade Federal deSanta Catarina, Brazil
Ricardo Silveira, Universidade Federal de SantaCatarina, Brazil
Peter Sloep, Open University of the Netherlands,The Netherlands
Zacharoula Smyrnaiou, University of Athens,Greece
Nancy Butler Songer, University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, U.S.A.
Michael Sonntag, Johannes Kepler University,Austria
Safeeullah Soomro, BIZTEK Institute of Business& Technology, Pakistan
Karl Steffens, University of Cologne, Germany
Craig Stewart, Indiana University, U.S.A.
Carlo Strapparava, FBK-IRST, Italy
Katsuaki Suzuki, Kumamoto University, Japan
Bénédicte Talon, ULCO, Université Lille Nord deFrance, France
Brendan Tangney, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Steven Tanimoto, University of Washington,U.S.A.
Maria Tatarinova , Moscow University ofEconomics, Statictics and Informatics, RussianFederation
Pei-Lee Teh, Monash University, Malaysia
John Thompson, Buffalo State College, StateUniversity of New York, U.S.A.
Thanassis Tiropanis, University of Southampton,U.K.
Shu-Mei Tseng, I-SHOU University, Taiwan
George Tsihrintzis, University of Piraeus, Greece
Jean Underwood, Nottingham Trent University,U.K.
Luis de la Fuente Valentín, University Carlos IIIde Madrid, Spain
X
PROGRAM COMMITTEE (CONT.)
Jari Veijalainen , University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Ioanna Vekiri , University of Thessaly, Greece
Maria Virvou , University of Piraeus, Greece
Harald Vranken , Open Universiteit, TheNetherlands
Charalambos Vrasidas, CARDET, Cyprus
Rupert Wegerif, University of Exeter, U.K.
Martin Wessner, Fraunhofer IESE, Germany
Su White, Web and Internet Science, U.K.
Denise Whitelock, Open University, U.K.
Tina Wilson, The Open University, U.K.
James Wolfer, Indiana University South Bend,U.S.A.
Su Luan Wong, Universiti Putra Malaysia,Malaysia
Clayton R. Wright , International EducationConsultant, Canada
Kalina Yacef, University of Sydney, Australia
Jie Chi Yang, National Central University, Taiwan
Takami Yasuda, Graduate School of InformationScience, Nagoya University, Japan
Kun Yuan , RAND Corporation, U.S.A.
Yun (Maria) Yue , University of Tasmania,Australia
Mario Žagar , University of Zagreb, Faculty ofElectrical Engineering and Computing, Croatia
Katarina Zakova , Slovak University ofTechnology in Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Diego Zapata-Rivera, Educational TestingService, U.S.A.
Qinglong Zhan, Tianjin University of Technologyand Education, China
Fani Zlatarova, Elizabethtown College, U.S.A.
Amal Zouaq, Royal Military College of Canada,Canada
Javier García Zubía, Universidad de Deusto,Spain
AUXILIARY REVIEWERS
Alda Lopes Gancarski, Institut TELECOM,CNRS SAMOVAR, France
Vittorio Fuccella , Università Di Salerno, Italy
John Lawlor , Bridge21, Ireland
Roberto Martinez, University of Sydney, Australia
Danielle O’Donovan, Trinity College Dublin,Ireland
Sohei Okamoto, University of Nevada, Reno,U.S.A.
Susan Reardon, Institute of Art, Design andTechnology, Ireland
SELECTED PAPERS JOURNAL
A short list of papers presented at CSEDU 2012 will be selected for publication of extended and revised versionsin the Journal of Education and Information Technologies. This selection will be done by the Conference Chairand Program Co-chairs, among the papers actually presentedat the conference, based on a rigorous review bythe CSEDU 2012 Program Committee members.
XI
FOREWORD
This book contains the proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Sup-ported Education (CSEDU 2012) which was organized and sponsored by the Institute forSystems and Technologies of Information, Control and Communication (INSTICC) andtechnically co-sponsored by SPEE (Portuguese Society for Engineering Education), IGIP(International Society for Engineering Education), ROLE (Responsive Open Learning Envi-ronments) and IFIP TC3 (International Federation for Information Processing – TechnicalCommittee 3 – ICT and Education).
CSEDU has become an annual meeting place for presenting and discussing learning para-digms, best practices and case studies that concern innovative computer-supported learningstrategies, institutional policies on technology-enhanced learning including learning fromdistance, supported by technology. The Web is currently a preferred medium for distancelearning and the learning practice in this context is usually referred to as e-learning ortechnology-enhanced learning. CSEDU 2012 is expected to give an overview of the state ofthe art in technology-enhanced learning and to also outline upcoming trends and promotediscussions about the education potential of new learning technologies in the academic andcorporate world.
This conference brings together researchers and practitioners interested in methodologiesand applications related to the education field. It has five main topic areas, covering differentaspects of Computer Supported Education, including “Information Technologies SupportingLearning”, “Learning/Teaching Methodologies and Assessment”, “Social Context and Lear-ning Environments”, “Domain Applications and Case Studies” and “Ubiquitous Learning”.We believe the proceedings, demonstrate new and innovative solutions, and highlight tech-nical problems in each field that are challenging and worthwhile.
CSEDU 2012 received 243 paper submissions from 58 countries in all continents. A double-blind review process was enforced, with the help of the 297 experts who are members ofthe conference program committee, all of them internationally recognized in one of themain conference topic areas. Only 29 papers were selected to be published and presentedas full papers, i.e. completed work (10 pages in proceedings / 30’ oral presentations). 73papers, describing work-in-progress, were selected as short papers for 20’ oral presentation.Furthermore 37 papers were presented as posters. The full-paper acceptance ratio was thus12%, and the total oral paper acceptance ratio was less than 42%. These ratios denote ahigh level of quality, which we intend to maintain and reinforce in the next edition of thisconference.
The high quality of the CSEDU 2012 programme is enhanced by three keynote lectures,delivered by distinguished guests who are renowned experts in their fields, including (alpha-betically): Joseph Trimmer (Ball State University, United States), David Kaufman (SimonFraser University, Canada) and Hugh Davis (University of Southampton, United Kingdom).
XIII
For the fourth edition of the conference we extended and ensured appropriate indexing ofthe proceedings of CSEDU including DBLP, INSPEC, EI and Thomson Reuters ConferenceProceedings Citation Index. Besides the proceedings edited by SciTePress, a short list ofpapers presented at the conference will be selected for publication of extended and revi-sed versions in the Journal of Education and Information Technologies. Furthermore, allpresented papers will soon be available at the SciTePress digital library.
The conference is complemented with two special sessions, focusing on specialized aspectsof computer supported education; namely, a Special Session on Enhancing Student Enga-gement in e-Learning (ESEeL 2012) and a Special Session on Serious Games on ComputerScience Learning (SGoCSL 2012).
Building an interesting and successful program for the conference required the dedicatedeffort of many people. Firstly, we must thank the authors, whose research and developmentefforts are recorded here. Secondly, we thank the members of the program committee andadditional reviewers for their diligence and expert reviewing. We also wish to include herea word of appreciation for the excellent organization provided by the conference secretariat,from INSTICC, who have smoothly and efficiently prepared the most appropriate environ-ment for a productive meeting and scientific networking. Last but not least, we thank theinvited speakers for their invaluable contribution and for taking the time to synthesize anddeliver their talks.
Looking forward to an inspiring world-class conference and a pleasant stay in the beautifulcity of Porto for all delegates, we hope to meet you again next year for the 5th CSEDU,details of which will be available at http://www.csedu.org.
José CordeiroPolytechnic Institute of Setúbal / INSTICC, Portugal
Markus HelfertDublin City University, Ireland
Maria João MartinsInstituto Superior Tecnico, Portugal
XIV
CONTENTS
INVITED SPEAKERS
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS
CREATIVE INQUIRY AND IMMERSIVE LEARNINGJoseph Trimmer
IS-5
ENHANCING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN ELEARNING - A Theoretical PerspectiveDavid Kaufman
IS-7
INSTITUTIONAL PERSONAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS - Paradise or Paradox?Hugh Davis
IS-9
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES SUPPORTING LEARNING
FULL PAPERS
AUTOMATIC ANALYSIS OF ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSIONSBreno Fabrício Terra Azevedo, Patricia Alejandra Behar andEliseo Berni Reategui
5
AUTOMATED EXTRACTION OF LECTURE OUTLINES FROM LECTURE VIDEOS - AHybrid Solution for Lecture Video IndexingHaojin Yang, Franka Gruenewald and Christoph Meinel
13
LEARNING BEHAVIOUR MINING BASED ON SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSISYu-Tzu Lin, Teng-Fai Seum and Herng-Yow Chen
23
A REVIEW OF E-LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES - Opportunities for Teaching and LearningAnnemieke Craig, Jo Coldwell-Neilson, Annegret Goold and Jenine Beekhuyzen
29
A LIGHT-WEIGHT SEMANTIC INTERPRETATION MECHANISM FOR A SKETCH-BASEDLEARNING ENVIRONMENTStefan Weinbrenner, Jan Engler, Pouyan Fotouhi-Tehrani and H. Ulrich Hoppe
42
OVERVIEW OF MATH LESSONS AUTHORING SYSTEM (MLAS)Samer F. Khasawneh and Paul S. Wang
48
MANAGING HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCIES - Teaching and Learning with a VirtualHumanitarian Disaster ToolOlatokunbo Ajinomoh, Alan Miller, Lisa Dow, Alasdair Gordon-Gibson and Eleanor Burt
55
VISUALIZATION OF OBJECT-ORIENTED (JAVA) PROGRAMSCornelis Huizing, Ruurd Kuiper, Christian Luijten and Vincent Vandalon
65
ViPS - An Intelligent Tutoring System for Exploring and Learning Physics through SimpleMachinesLakshman S. Myneni and N. Hari Narayanan
73
PROGRAMMING EXERCISES EVALUATION SYSTEMS - An Interoperability SurveyRicardo Queirós and José Paulo Leal
83
XV
SHORT PAPERS
HUMAN MOTIVATION PRINCIPLES AND HUMAN FACTORS FOR VIRTUALCOMMUNITIESAzam Esfijani, Farookh Khadeer Hussain and Elizabeth Chang
93
HTML5, MICRODATA AND SCHEMA.ORG - Towards an Educational Social-semantic Web forthe Rest of Us?Lars Johnsen
101
TEAM LEARNING PROGRAM FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERS USINGPROJECT-BASED LEARNING - Case Study of the “Upper Process” in IT EngineeringMinoru Nakayama, Manabu Fueki, Shinji Seki, Toshikazu Uehara and Kenji Matsumoto
105
PRO-INOVA - Virtual Platform for Innovation Management in Doctoral SchoolsGheorghe Sebestyen, Marius Bulgaru and Laura Grindei
112
ForMath - Intelligent Tutoring System in MathematicsPiotr Brzoza, Ewa Łobos, Janina Macura, Beata Sikora and MarekZabka
118
JAPANESE TEXT PRESENTATION SYSTEM FOR PERSONS WITH READINGDIFFICULTY - Design and ImplementationKyota Aoki and Shinjiro Murayama
123
SPREADSHEETS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING - Creative Ideas for Informatics and ForeignLanguage LessonsBarbara Sabitzer
129
OBSERVATION AND SUPPORT IN A COLLABORATIVE PEDAGOGICAL DEVICE - AMulti-agent System to Control and Monitor Pedagogical ActivitiesInsaf Tnazefti-Kerkeni, Henda Belaid-Ajroud and Bénédicte Talon
135
REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT TOOLS IN VIRTUAL WORLDSIshbel M. M. Duncan and Natalie J. Coull
141
NEW FRONTIERS IN MUSIC EDUCATION THROUGH THE IEEE 1599 STANDARDAdriano Baratè and Luca A. Ludovico
146
SUPERVISING AND MANAGING PROJECTS THROUGH A TEMPLATE BASEDE-PORTFOLIO SYSTEMCatarina Félix and Álvaro Figueira
152
TRACESHEETS - Spreadsheets of Program Executions as a Common Ground between Learnersand InstructorsSoichiro Fujii and Hisao Tamaki
158
GRAPHICAL SIMULATION OF NUMERICAL ALGORITHMS - An Aproach based on CodeInstrumentation and Java TechnologiesCarlos Balsa, Luís Alves, Maria J. Pereira, Pedro J. Rodrigues and Rui P. Lopes
164
LEARNING SUPPORT FOR TENSE SELECTION OF ENGLISH COMPOSITION BY ASKINGBACK QUESTIONSHiroki Hidaka, Yasuhiko Watanabe, Kenji Umemoto, Yuusuke Taniguchi and Yoshihiro Okada
170
SPREADING EXPERTISE SCORES IN OVERLAY LEARNER MODELSMartin Hochmeister
175
XVI
TRACING THE EMMERGING USE OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES IN HIGHEREDUCATION - A Literature ReviewMarta Pinto, Francislê Souza, Fernanda Nogueira, Ana Balula, Luis Pedro, Lúcia Pombo, Fernando Ramosand António Moreira
181
GENERIC USER MODELING FOR ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMSAlexander Heimbuch, Christian Saul and Heinz-Dietrich Wuttke
187
EFFECTIVE POLICY BASED MANAGEMENT OF 3D MULE - An Exploratory Study TowardsDeveloping Student Supportive Policy ConsiderationsIndika Perera, Colin Allison and Alan Miller
193
THE METAFORA PLATFORM TOOLS AND LEARNING TO LEARN SCIENCE TOGETHERZ. Smyrnaiou and R. Evripidou
200
USER’S ACCESS TO THE ROBOTIC E-LEARNING SYSTEM - SyRoTekMiroslav Kulich, Karel Košnar, Jan Chudoba, Ondrej Fišer and Libor Preucil
206
BI-DIRECTIONAL EDUCATION SYSTEM BASED ON POSITION PATTERNTECHNOLOGYSanghoon Kim, Joonkyo Kim, Jaehyun Park and Seung-Gol Lee
212
EXPERIMENTING WITH ENGLISH COLLABORATIVE WRITING ON GOOGLE SITESNicole Tavares and Samuel Chu
217
EVALUATING ENGAGEMENT TO ADDRESS UNDERGRADUATE FIRST YEARTRANSITION - A Case StudyClive Holtham, Rich Martin, Ann Brown, Gawesh Jawaheer and Angela Dove
223
SCAFFOLDING THE STORY CREATION PROCESSM. Hall, L. Hall, J. Hodgson, C. Hume and L. Humphries
229
WEB TOOLS FOR CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION COUPLING FUNDAMENTALSWITH PROCESS DESIGN - The Distillation Case StudyM. G. Rasteiro, A. Ferreira and J. Granjo
235
RECMOODLE - AN EDUCATIONAL RECOMMENDER SYSTEMDhiego Carvalho, Carlos Tadeu Queiroz de Moraes, Dante Barone and Leandro Krug Wives
241
A SYSTEM FOR MANAGING CHANGES IN COURSE MATERIALEssam Zaneldin
247
DESIGN OF PROACTIVE SCENARIOS AND RULES FOR ENHANCED E-LEARNINGSandro Reis, Denis Shirnin and Denis Zampunieris
253
INTERACTION WITH A DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF A UNIVERSITYEmily Bagarukayo and Theo P. van der Weide
259
DESIGNING ELEARNING MODELS - The Agora FrameworkJosé Rangel-Garcia and Jorge Buenabad-Chávez
265
NETWORKING BETWEEN LMS MOODLE AND EXTERNAL APPLICATIONSMikuláš Gangur
271
eLSaaS: A FRAMEWORK FOR MOBILE LEARNING CONTENT ADAPTATIONIvan Madjarov and Omar Boucelma
276
XVII
AN EFFICIENT EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL EXPLORATION USING EXTRACTEDCONCEPTSTetsuro Takahashi and Richard C. Larson
282
SMILE - SMARTPHONES IN LECTURES - Initiating a Smartphone-based Audience ResponseSystem as a Student ProjectLinus Feiten, Manuel Buehrer, Sebastian Sester and Bernd Becker
288
LEARNET - A Location-based Social Networking Methodology for Learner Group FormingJessica G. Benner, Mohd Anwar and Hassan A. Karimi
294
POSTERS
INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATICS FOR FUTURE DOCUMENTALISTS IN THEEUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREAM. Gestal, D. Rivero, J. R. Rabuñal, J. Dorado and A. Pazos
301
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SITUATION AND PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF E-LEARNINGAPPLICATION FOR STRESS PREVENTION OF ROAD TRANSPORT DRIVERS AND SMEIvan Atanasov Kolarov
305
EVALUATION OF E-LEARNING TOOLS BASED ON A MULTI-CRITERIA DECISIONMAKINGEduardo Islas-Pérez, Yasmín Hernández-Pérez, Miguel Pérez-Ramírez, Carlos F. García-Hernández andGuillermo Rodriguez-Ortiz
309
ONLINE DISTANT LEARNING USING SITUATION-BASED SCENARIOSFabrice Trillaud, Phuong Thao Pham, Mourad Rabah, Pascal Estraillier and Jamal Malki
313
LEARNING STYLES FOR K-12 MATHEMATICS E-LEARNINGAtakan Aral and Zehra Cataltepe
317
DIALOGICAL INTERACTIONS CONCERNING THE SCIENTIFIC CONTENT USINGTHE PLANNING TOOL, THE ARGUMENTATION TOOL AND FACE TO FACECOMMUNICATIONZ. Smyrnaiou, E. Varypati and E. Tsouma
323
MULTIPLEXING OF TUTORIALS IN DISTANCE EDUCATION USING TV BROADCASTNETWORKArindan Saha, Aniruddha Sinha, Arpan Pal and Anupam Basu
327
ANALYSIS OF THE BENEFITS OF COLLECTIVE LEARNING THROUGH QUESTIONANSWERINGIasmina-Leila Ermalai, Josep Lluís de la Rosa and Araceli Moreno
331
A WATERMARKING SYSTEM FOR TEACHING STUDENTS TO RESPECTINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTSMaria Chroni, Angelos Fylakis and Stavros Nikolopoulos
336
EFFECTIVE ONLINE TESTING - Nurturing the Digital NativesGabriele Frankl, Peter Schartner and Zebedin Gerald
340
THE LEARNING DESIGN IN EDUCATION TODAY - Putting Pedagogical Content Knowledgeinto PracticeIsabel Azevedo, Dulce Mota, Carlos Vaz de Carvalho, Eurico Carrapatoso and Luis Paulo Reis
344
ATTITUDES OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD USERSBiró Piroska
348
XVIII
LOW COST EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES FOR EDUCATIONAL SEISMIC NETWORKSGeorge Hloupis, Ilias Stavrakas, Konstantinos Moutzourisand Dimos Triantis
356
ONLINE MATHEMATICS EDUCATION - E-Math for First Year Engineering StudentsSteen Markvorsen and Karsten Schmidt
360
Q-BAT: A CUSTOMIZABLE VIDEOGAME FOR EDUCATIONOlga Peñalba, Antonio Cerezo, Alejo Silos and Alvaro García-Tejedor
364
USING ONTOLOGIES TO DESIGN COMPETENCY-BASED E-LEARNING APPLICATIONSMaria Bagiampou and Achilles Kameas
368
TOWARDS PERSONALIZED TRAINING OF ELECTRIC POWER GENERATIONOPERATORSRicardo Molina, Guillermo Rodriguez, Yasmin Hernandez, Israel Paredes, Gustavo Arroyo and LilianaArgotte
372
TOWARDS BUILDING PEDAGOGICAL AGENTS BASED ON EXPERIMENTS - APreliminary ResultHanju Lee and Kazuo Hiraki
376
AUTHOR INDEX 381
XIX
THE METAFORA PLATFORM TOOLS AND LEARNING TO LEARN SCIENCE TOGETHER
Z. Smyrnaiou and R. Evripidou Educational Technology Lab, School of Philosophy, Department of Pedagogy,
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece zsmyrnaiou@ppp.uoa.gr, rox_evripidou@yahoo.com
Keywords: Learning to Learn Together (L2L2), Inquiry-based Learning, Modeling, Science, Constructionist Learning, Visual Language.
Abstract: As Science and Mathematics teaching and learning in Europe decays, the Metafora project offers a proposal for the promotion of a new pedagogy based on online social learning through the use of the platform’s tools. Our Pilot study aimed at exploring how students can enhance their science learning by engaging in meaning generation processes using the Metafora tools. These processes include making sense of motion in Newtonian space using one of the tools, the 3D Juggler Microworld. The students also engaged in group discussion and argumentation using Lasad and collaborative planning of actions using the Planning tool of the Metafora platform. The role of the tools is promising in enhancing students’ scientific meaning making. Yet, further research is needed in exploitting the tools’ potential to contribute in collaborative, social learning and enhance the learning climate with an emphasis on togetherness which seems to be missing from our schools.
1 INTRODUCTION
This paper presents data collected in Greece during our Pilot Study in the framework of Metafora – a European project- which incorporates inquiry-based, modeling, and constructionist processes for science learning.
Using the Metafora platform’s tools mentioned above (3D Juggler Microworld, Lasad, and Planning tool) students at the 2nd high school grade, with very limited prior knowledge of Physics, were asked to solve an open-ended challenge in Physics in teaching and learning physical concepts.
Students worked collaboratively having the chance to interact face to face (among the in subgroup members) or using the Metafora argumentation tool Lasad (the only means of comunication among subgroups). In this argumentation and discussion workspace the students gathered their findings and arrived at an agreed solution. Lasad played the role of a Web 2.0 tool which helped them organise their learning and disseminate educational content.
They had to explore and build models of 2d and 3d motions and collisions in the 3d Newtonian space of the 3D Juggler microworld of the platform. As
most 3d gaming environments, known for their success with young people, 3D Juggler gave students the chance to operate in a complex, fun and engaging domain while at the same time they collaborated to address the challenge developing communication, strategic thinking and problem solving skills. Finally, the students had to present their plan of actions in order to address the challenges using the Planning Tool of the platform.
Although our findings are encouraging as regards the role of the tools in helping students engage in scientific meaning making, we do believe that the students did not take full advantage of the tools’s potential for the enhancement of their collaborative, social skills. This is partly due to the complexity and the confusingly great number of alternatives given by the cards especially in the Planning tool. The limited time for familiarization also played a negative role as did the lack of a deeper culture of collaboration in our schools.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The role of modeling as an inquiry-based learning process has proven to be of great importance in
200
helping students to better their reasoning and understanding of scientific concepts. This process is further enhanced when technology-based educational tools are used Moreover, the process of exploring, designing and building personally meaningful computer models, which can be shared, allows students to realize their own conceptualizations and ideas regarding the scientific quantities and concepts. As they study these concepts it gives them the chance to test these ideas using their models in accordance with the constructionist approach. When these models are created in collaboration with their peers, they become subjects of discussion and reflection thus leading them to deeper understanding of the scientific phenomena behind them
At this time and age, when computer gaming is part of the students’ interests and daily reality, game microworlds, specially designed to engage them in the study of academic subjects, offer them the opportunity to learn in a way they are familiar with. Incomplete by design, half–baked microworlds (Kynigos, 2007) as the one the students worked with during our study, namely 3D Juggler, can work as idea generators and vehicles of scientific meaning making. At the same time, the students working with them have the chance to explore, (de)construct them according to their understanding.
In addition to our claim that in Sciences planning may be associated with the process of problem solving, Planning has been addressed as an element, among others, of self-regulated learning (SRL) or as one of the three phases of cognitive regulation (along with monitoring and evaluation) and it has been described as a general domain metacogitive skill (Schraw 2007). Numerous research studies have examined the self-regulated learning in a cognitive and social cognitive perspective. Self-regulated learning is a process whereby learners think about their thinking (metacognitive process), act in a strategic way (plan, monitor, evaluate personal progress) and they are motivated to learn). For some researchers what has particular significance is the emergent planning in the context of constructionistic environments. For others, as a key tool that guides them to find strategic solutions to solve complex problems. The majority agree that it may be a means of representation, reflection, expression, communication and self-regulation.
Apart from problem solving, in Physics we are interested in what they learn about the scientific content and the scientific language. As far as the former is concerned, we know from relevant research that the creation of scientific meanings
starts from the intuitions, the initial representations of students the phenomenological descriptions, the descriptions of actions or events perceived as scientific concepts and relationships between concepts (Smyrnaiou & Weil-Barais, 2005).
3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study examined the following research questions:
What is the impact of the Metafora Platform/learning on students’ ability to conduct science inquiry & constructionism and overall, modelling and to use the inquiry skills of questioning, planning, implementing, constructing a model, concluding, arguing and reporting?
What is the impact of the Metafora tools in orchestrating learning to learn together (L2L2) meaning generation processes and, more specifically, Physical concepts and scientific methods?
4 RESEARCH METHOD AND PROCEDURE
4.1 Use of the Metafora Tools
Before dividing the students to subgroups we made a short presentation of each of the tools they would work with, namely the 3d Juggler Microworld (J), Lasad (L) and Planning tool (P) of the Metafora platform (See Figure 1 below).
Figure 1: The 3D Juggler microworld.
THE�METAFORA�PLATFORM�TOOLS�AND�LEARNING�TO�LEARN�SCIENCE�TOGETHER
201
In this short presentation we told them that they would “play” in the 3d juggler microworld in the same way as they do with any other computer game, in order to deal with a certain challenge. We also told them that they could use Lasad as a Web2 discussion and communication tool. Using it they could discuss any issues needed in order to solve the challenge together. We briefly presented the discussion cards included in it. We emphasized that their ultimate mission was to work together on the Planning tool so as to present the plan they followed in order to solve the challenge and showed them the different cards they could use in it to make their plan.
Next, our students were given the Research Protocol (worksheet) with a simple warm-up challenge they had to address in order to familiarize themselves with the tools and the main challenge later.
Warm up: “Keeping the blue and the green balls still, shoot the red ball vertically upwards”.
Main Challenge: “The balls should hit each other’s base in a circular manner” (e.g. the red ball should hit the blue ball’s base etc.)
4.2 Data Collection
A screen-capture software, was used to record the students’ interactions both with the digital tool and their verbal ones with each other.. Voice recorders, the researchers’ field notes, the students’ answers to the Research Protocol, as well as their maps in LASAD and in the Planning Tool complete the corpus of data.
4.3 Description of the Setting and Participants in the Pilot Study
The pilot study took place in one of the Public Junior High Schools in Athens (2nd Experimental Junior High School of Ambelokipi).
The four teachers/researchers offered a short presentation of the tools before the activity started. We tried to limit our intervention and let students work independently but we often had to remind them to use the discussion tool to keep the other subgroup posted about their progress or planned moves. Our intention was to let them discover for themselves how they should manipulate the microworld objects and variables and build their communication and planning without any external influence. Nevertheless, there were instances when our intervention was more obvious. One such case
has to do with our effort to turn their attention to the guidelines given in the Research Protocol which they seemed not to read or pay attention to.
The students who took part in this pilot study were in the second junior high school grade (13 years of age), had very limited knowledge of Physics and had not been taught kinematics or projectile motion yet. Nevertheless, they worked with quantities such as “shot Azimuth” and managed to work out what they represented and their role for the solution of the challenges.
Each subgroup of two students worked on one computer and the collaboration between the subgroups was only possible through the Metafora platform tools (Lasad discussion maps –the chat feature was not enabled-and Planning tool). The face to face collaboration was possible between the two members of the same subgroup only.
5 RESULTS
The students had to work with the physical properties and concepts in their effort to succeed in manipulating the microworld’s objects to solve the challenges, although they did so rather unconsciously. To be more specific, they, for example, decided to “play” with the value of “gravity pull” (gravitational acceleration) in order to make the blue and green balls stay still, which is rather surprising as one would have expected them to zero these objects’ initial velocity instead by zeroing “power”. Another such example is also the fact that they wanted to use “wind speed” and “wind direction” in order to help carry the red ball where they wanted.
The following flow chart is cited to demonstrate what was done and discussed in the real activity while addressing the main challenge, using the three tools (table 1).
The results show that the students still have not clarified the difference between the Shot Altitude and the Shot Azimuth. We assume that they are confused by the fact that both are measured in angle degrees. Students do not realize that in order to comprehend what each of the variable does, they need to isolate them. After several efforts and disagreements, they finally manage to isolate the Shot Azimuth and to give the right value to it, so as to direct the red ball to the blue ball’s base. Students altered the values of the Power and of the Shot Altitude simultaneously so as to achieve the right combination. We also observe that they changed the mass of the ball, perhaps because they believed that
CSEDU�2012�-�4th�International�Conference�on�Computer�Supported�Education
202
Table 1: The flow chart represents what is done and discussed in the real activity.
SUBGROUP A SUBGROUP B
Experiment with “shot altitude” and
“shot azimuth”. Disagree on the role
of “power” (J)
Reflect on the guidelines.
Follow them to set the
variable values (J)
Experiment with “gravity pull” and
wind ignoring the guidelines (J)
Experiment with the key
variables “Shot Azimuth’
and “Shot Altitude” (J)
Fail to realize how to isolate the
variables (J)
Disregard (probably
unintentionally) the given
instructions and experiment
with “wind direction” (J)
Isolate the “shot azimuth” variable
and start to realize its key role for the
direction of motion on the horizontal
level (J)
Experiment with the key
variables “Shot Azimuth’
“Shot Altitude” and
“power” but fail to isolate
them (J)
Disagree on the value “shot azimuth”
should take in order for the red ball to
hit the blue ball’s base (J)
Experiment with “mass”
Before they can draw a
conclusion they give up (J)
Experiment in order to solve their
disagreement (J)
(with help by the
researchers) isolate
variables. Realize how
azimuth affects the ball’s
direction (J)
Solve the challenge creating a linear
motion model (“shot altitude”=00) (J)
Experiment with “power”
and “shot Altitude” and get
close to their goal (J)
Reflect on the role of “shot azimuth”
(J)
Communicate their findings
so far with subgroup A
through a“Microworld
Idea” card in Lasad (L)
Refine their solution (J) By trial and error manage
to solve the challenge (J)
Communicate their findings with
subgroup B through a Lasad
“Comment” card (L)
Evaluate solution and refine it by
turning the linear motion of the shot
into a projectile (J)
Experiment with “power” to modify
height but affect range instead (J)
Fail to “fix” the ball’s Range by
experimenting with mass (J)
Go to Lasad and get help from
subgroup’s B “microworld Idea” card
(L)
Share their findings with
subgroup A by a
“Microworld Idea” Lasad
card. (L)
Evaluate subgroup B’s solution by
experimenting with the specific values
for the variables (J)
Reflect on their
moves and start creating the
plan using two Planning
tool cards: “Find hypothesis
and “Experiment”
Table 1: The flow chart represents what is done and discussed in the real activity.(cont.)
Reflect on their moves and start
creating the plan using an
“experiment” card to report on their
experimentations with “angle
degrees” (P)
Check the values they gave
the variables (J)
Reflect on the role of the “shot
Azimuth” for the ball’s direction on a
“Make Predictions” card (P)
Unsure of the role of mass,
they start experimenting
with it. Conclude mass does
not affect the Range or
direction of the ball (J)
Ask subgroup B to complete their
Plan. Tool “Draw Conclusions card
through a Lasad “Comment” card (L)
Read subgroup’s B “Find hypothesis”
card (P)
See subgroup A’s
“comment” card. Choose a
“Microworld Idea” card to
write an answer in but leave
it blank (L)
React to subgroup’s B “Find
Hypothesis” card” warning them on
their “Comment” Lasad card and
reminding them to fill out the “Draw
conlusions”with text (L)
Connect the Planning Tool
cards (P)
Intrude subgroup’s B “find
Hypothesis” card to erase their text
and rephrase it to sound like a
hypothesis (P)
Report their success to
solve the challenge on their
“microworld idea” Lasad
(L)
Reconsider their “experiment”
Planning tool card and correct it so as
to make sense (P)
Add text on their
“DrawConclusions” card
reflecting on the role of
S.Altitude, Azimuth for the
shot (P)
Give subgroup B instructions how to
write their “hypotheses” on Planning
tool without giving specific values (L)
Read A’s “comment” card
and ask for helping ideas
to improve their“ Draw
Conclusion” card (L)
this affects the range. We assume that they think that the lighter ball can move easier and reach farther than a heavier ball.
Subsequently, students communicated through Lasad and they started to construct a joint plan with the moves that led to the solution of the challenge in the Planning tool. From the comments that students recorded on the cards of the Planning Tool, we realize that they have comprehended the fact that the Shot Azimuth is the one that defines the direction to which the ball will move on the horizontal level. In addition, they understood that the combination of the Shot Altitude and the Power is the one that defines the range the ball can reach. Lastly, the cards students chose to construct their plan as well as the order with which they placed them, leads to the assumption that they have approached the scientific method (observe, hypothetize, experiment, e.t.c.).
At first subgroup B ignores subgroup’s A
THE�METAFORA�PLATFORM�TOOLS�AND�LEARNING�TO�LEARN�SCIENCE�TOGETHER
203
comments. Later however, subgroup B responds and the two subgroups manage to cooperate. On the other hand, we notice that whereas subgroup A started the discussion and the cooperation, we realize that they expect subgroup B to announce specific results (with numbers), while subgroup A just announces the fact that they have resolved the challenge.
6 CONCLUSIONS / DISCUSSION
The physical concepts and quantities the students had to work with and understand deeper while addressing the challenges, are those which have to do with projectile motion in a Newtonian space. The fact that the microworld was a 3D environment gave them the chance to generate meanings about not only simple Physical concepts and quantities e. g speed, power but also complex ones e. g Azimuth. The activities succeeded in engaging the students in the (de)construction of the microworld while at the same time offered them an open-ended challenge. They approached the challenge in a creative and alternative way. One of the subgroups e.g. managed to address the challenge and make the red ball hit the blue ball’s base following linear motion on the horizontal level. Yet, they decided to reject it as not spectacular enough and looked for a way to make it “fly” towards the target (projectile motion) which they eventually accomplished
There was a point at which the two subgroups erased each other’s cards on their Planning tool map and destroyed the whole map. This though, led them to reconciliation and collaboration since they had to rebuild their plan together from scratch.
In any case, they needed to understand what their classmates said to the group and to express their own opinion
They had the chance, and took full advantage of it, to “play” with the physical quantities of the microworld and see how they affected the objects’ motion thus starting to form mental representations about them. They had no previous idea of what e.g. “Shot Azimuth” might mean but they figured it out quite easily while they seemed engrossed and enthusiastic in the process (Figure 2). The students gained deeper understanding of scientific concepts and the relations between them by experimenting with motion in Newtonian space.
Consequently, they had the chance to Learn to Learn Together (L2L2): how to collaborate, how to plan their moves, how to argue, scientific concepts and physical quantities, scientific methods and approaches.
Figure 2: The role of the “Shot Altitude” and “Shot Azimuth” angles (70 and 15 degrees respectively in the drawing below) for the direction of the ball.
The following findings pose questions and considerations as regards possible changes and improvements to be employed in the future main study:
The students seemed reluctant and unwilling to post their findings and share with the other subgroup. In most cases they did so after the researchers persistently asked them to. They seemed confused about how to construct a plan using the-admittedly too many- planning cards. They could not make a plan before experimenting and knowing how to address the challenges first. They resorted to the same cards again and again to add text which, at times, was irrelevant to the card’s label. Therefore, we conclude that in the future main study, we will have to allocate more time for the familiarization session. In the familiarization session we will have to give students ready made sample models of both argumentative discussions and plans in Lasad and Planning Tool respectively so as to help them realize the use of each card in them. The issue of collaboration and feeling comfortable with sharing questions, findings etc. with others may also have to do with the lack of a school culture of collaboration. Admittedly, our schools encourage competitiveness more than collaboration. This fact makes it even more necessary and urgent to introduce such tools as the ones our study presents, in order to help emphasize the need for collaboration and togetherness in learning.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Metafora: “Learning to learn together: A visual language for social orchestration of educational activities”. EC - FP7-ICT-2009-5, Technology-enhanced Learning, No. 257872.
CSEDU�2012�-�4th�International�Conference�on�Computer�Supported�Education
204
REFERENCES
Boekaerts, M. & Corno, L., 2005. Self-Regulation in the Classroom: A Perspective on Assessment and Intervention, Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199-231.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Driver, R., 1989. Students' Conceptions and the Learning of Science, International Journal of Science Education, vol. 11, p.481-490.
Fischbein, E., 2002. Intuition in Science and Mathematics: An Educational Approach.Springer.
Harel, I. and Papert, S., 1991. Constructionism, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Higham, R, Freathy, R, Wegerif, R., 2010. Developing responsible leadership through a 'pedagogy of challenge': an investigation into leadership education for teenagers. School Leadership and Management. 30(5), 419-434.
Johnson, Laurence F.; Smith, Rachel S.; Smythe, J. Troy; Varon, Rachel K. (2009). Challenge-Based Learning: An approach for Our Time. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Kafai, Y. B. and Resnick, M., Eds., 1996. Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kynigos, C. (2007) ‘Half–Baked Logo Microworlds as Boundary Objects in Integrated Design’, Informatics in Education, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 335–359.
Kynigos, C., Smyrnaiou, Z. & Roussou, M. (2010). Exploring the generation of meanings in mathematics and science with collaborative full-body games. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 222-225.
Schraw G. (2007). The use of computer-based environments for understanding and improving self-regulation. In Metacognition and Learning, 2 (2-3), 169 – 176.
Simpson, G., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R., 2006. ‘Exploring the mathematics of motion through construction and collaboration’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 22, pp. 114–136.
Smyrnaiou Z., Moustaki F., Kynigos C. (2011). METAFORA Learning Approach Processes Contributing To Students’ Meaning Generation In Science Learning. 5th European Conference on Games Based Learning - ECGBL 2011. Athens, Greece, 20-21 October (paper submitted).
Smyrnaiou Z. & Dimitracopoulou A., 2007. Ιnquiry learning using a technology-based learning environment. In (Ed) C. Constantinou & Z. Zacharia, Computer Based Learning in Sciences, Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Computer Based Learning (CBLIS), 31 June-6 July, Heraklion, Crete, pp. 90-100.
Smyrnaiou, Z. & Weil-Barais, A., 2005. Évaluation cognitive d’un logiciel de modélisation auprès
d’élèves de collège, Didaskalia, nº 27, Décembre, pp. 133-149.
Viennot, L. (1996). Raisonner en physique (la part du sens commun). Paris, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université.
Wilensky, U., 1999. NetLogo [computer software]. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Yiannoutou N., Smyrnaiou Z., Daskolia M., Moustaki F., Kynigos C., 2011. 14th Biennial EARLI Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, “Education for a Global Networked Society”. Exeter, United Kingdom, 30 August - 03 September.
Zacharia, Z. (2006). Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions of Science Teachers Regarding the Educational Use of Computer Simulations and Inquiry-based Experiments in Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40: 792-823.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3-17.
THE�METAFORA�PLATFORM�TOOLS�AND�LEARNING�TO�LEARN�SCIENCE�TOGETHER
205
USER’S ACCESS TO THE ROBOTIC E-LEARNING SYSTEMSyRoTek
Miroslav Kulich, Karel Kosnar, Jan Chudoba, Ondrej Fiser and Libor PreucilCzech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Department of Cybernetics,
Prague, Czech Republicfkulich, kosnar, chudoba, fiseron1, preucilg@fel.cvut.cz
Keywords: e-Learning, Mobile Robotics.
Abstract: SyRoTek is an e-learning platform for mobile robotics, artificial inteligence, control and other related domainsthat provides access to mobile robots moving in the restricted area. The user is able not to only observea gathered data using internet interface, but also control the robots in real-time. Unlike majority of existinge-learning robotic systems developed in the world in which the user can only tele-operate robots, behaviourof the robots in the SyRoTek system can be modified, as the system allows to run own algorithms developedby the user. The paper presents two interfaces providing access to the user: web pages and extension ofIDE NetBeans. Furthermore, two courses based on SyRoTek taught at two universities are described anddiscussed.
1 INTRODUCTION
With a huge expansion of artificial intelligence andmobile robotics technologies into many industrial ap-plications as well as day-to-day activities it is nec-essary to train students to understand and managethese technologies. Already young children get fa-miliarize with the world of science and technology inkindergartens (Pekarova, 2008) (Stockelmayr et al.,2011), where children (besides other activities) playwith robotic toys like Bee-bot or the animatronic petdinosaur Pleo. Older children at basic and secondaryschools are introduced to toy building bricks LegoMindstorms or Fischertechnik, which allow to designand build own robot models and program and con-trol these models making use graphical software (Al-tin et al., 2010). Children thus understand main prin-ciples of robotics and problems needed to be solvedto build an autonomous mobile robot. On the otherhand, poor sensor equipment and fragile constructiondisqualify these tools for real-world problems andlong-term experiments. Universities teaching roboticstherefore use more powerful platforms like Videre Er-ratic or Pioneer or build their own robots. The maindrawback of this approach is a price and a necessityof a continuous maintenance. This is more importantwhen more than one robot is used.
The other stream focuses on building robotic lab-oratories accessible via Internet. These laboratories
allow to share a robotic hardware among a large groupof users from different places. One of the first robotscontrolled at distance and available to public was Tel-egarden (Telegarden, 2008). It has been running since1995 with 9000 users registered to the system in thefirst month of operation. Bradford Robotic Telescope(Telescope, 2008) is a part of an e-learning course ofwhich goal is to popularize astronomy. In addition toopen up a unique equipment to a broad public, themany research programs use telescope for researchof galaxies, supernovas, and black holes. The sys-tem thus combines a basic research with education bysharing limited sources. The project RHINO (Rhino,2008) combines tele-operation with visualization as itoffers a robotic guide in a museum. The robot Xavier(Simmons et al., 2000) is an autonomous robot oper-ating in indoor environments of university hallways.The robot autonomy allows the users to enter high-level tasks (e.g. go to a specified position), whichare performed by the robot autonomously. Robotoy(Robotoy, 2008) - a robotic arm with a gripper - al-lows the users to control it via a web interface. Theuser can choose between two cameras from which itcan see robot’s working environment. The robot iscontrolled in the command regime, i.e. the user entersa command which is immediately fulfilled. One of themost complex robotic e-learning laboratories was de-veloped at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology inLausanne (EPFL). The RobOnWeb project (Siegwart
206
top related